You better recognise (and publicise)
Editorial By David Large

Cannabis Awareness Week kicked off on Saturday with the arrival of Mary Jane, the aptly named CannaBus, in our fair city. Now, just how much you’re around campus over the next few days might determine how much of an impact this event will have on your week. NORML plans to hold daily workshops on the Union Lawn, open lectures in St David’s Lecture Theatre every evening, not to mention “late-night classics from the stoner movie canon” each night. All well and good, really.

Say what you will about motivation and marijuana smokers, NORML members have showed over the past few years that they’re a lot more organised than most people would give them credit for – they’ve made good use of the democratic process (as it exists at OUSA) over the past two years by successfully passing two specific motions that bind the association to “condone the public smoking of cannabis on the Union Lawn as a protest against cannabis prohibition,” and “recognise and publicise the knowledge that alcohol use is more harmful than cannabis use.” Without even offering proof of that “knowledge.” Burn. NORML members also take part in peaceful protests against prohibition twice a week on our campus, regardless of whether it’s during University term or not, which makes them a damn sight more active than most OUSA-affiliated clubs, and even if their efforts haven’t yet led to concrete change, any increase in awareness is probably a good thing for them. Roll on this year’s OUSA Golds awards, I say.

To most people who have walked past a 4.20 smoke-up, the fact that the Police don’t turn up, regardless of the numbers of students involved, seems a tacit acknowledgement that they don’t mind if students smoke the stuff, even in public. The University has also taken a hands-off approach, with Campus Watch staffers (who’d otherwise probably love to bust some heads) limited to asking NORML members to remove signs from University property. NORML even picks up their own rubbish after each peaceful protest, which leaves the University grounds looking marginally better than they do after OUSA’s garden
variety, birthday party protests. With such a positive climate around, you’d expect everything to happen smoothly throughout the week.

It probably will, although that’s more to do with the fact that the University doesn’t want to be associated with any thorny legal issues, and that any problems will have been swept under the rug. Problems such as staff in the Pharmacology Department being instructed not to speak at or take part in discussions about the health issues of using cannabis, for fear of associating the University with that noxious weed. The stock excuse we’re likely to hear is that the University doesn’t want to have anything to do with ‘political issues’, a reply that cropped up last year when we saw euthanasia activists refused the right to make use of a University of Otago lecture theatre. The trouble with reactions like this, though, are that if universities cannot (or will not) allow their staff to ask or even answer difficult questions, and put issues in front of intelligent, interested and engaged audiences, who will?

Alcohol v Cannabis: can’t we all just get along?
During the week, we can expect to hear a great deal about the relative effects of cannabis and alcohol, particularly at Thursday’s round-table discussion, featuring the relative speaking talents of Jim Anderton, Nandor Tanczos and Pauline Gardiner. Following on from last year’s motion to “recognise and publicise,” what you’re likely to see this week is the Otago branch of NORML framing their argument for decriminalisation around the negative effects of alcohol use (despite its legal status), and the relative lack of such effects for cannabis use. This is actually a pretty good approach to take in Dunedin, where the most popular topic of complaint among permanent residents is ‘those damn
students’.

Among those damn students, though, it may seem that, by advocating
tighter restrictions on alcohol use alongside looser control of cannabis use, Otago NORML is trying to ruin the party for everyone else. To that, a relatively reasonable person might say that hundreds of people are adversely affected by alcohol every weekend. An equally reasonable person might reply that thousands of people use alcohol responsibly each weekend, and they shouldn’t be punished for the actions of a few. That’s also true. But can’t the same be said of cannabis? Can’t one more naturally occurring drug be added to the panoply we already have to choose from? Who’s really being hurt here?

Don’t take my rhetorical questions for it. Read the opinion article on page fifteen, or read our feature article on page 24. Or go out this weekend with an open mind, and think what our city would be like if the legal status of these two drugs were reversed.

Create your own editorial through judicious use of circles
Alcohol is known to be unhealthy / healthy / poisonous at high percentages, but it’s legal, and consumed in great quantities each weekend, leading to violence / arrests / some pretty bad decisions / you thinking you’re a lot funnier and cooler than you really are. Conversely, cannabis is known to be unhealthy / healthy / awesome, but it’s illegal, and yet is consumed in large enough quantities to make people hungry / violent / dazed / really really entertaining. What’s the solution / problem here? Making make alcohol (slightly more) illegal / more expensive / harder to buy? Or enforcing laws / moral guidelines that are supposed to protect / serve / herd society? What about changing the laws to better reflect balance / fairness / a level playing field?